Originally Posted by JohnR
- Raise tariffs on imported goods (hopefully spur more domestic production)
I kinda like reflexive policies. If Japan wants to have lotsa Japanese cars in the US market, than they should have comparable import taxes on our stuff as theirs. Ditto with China.
- Work towards raising the value of the dollar (encourage foreigners to invest in US businesses).
Is the dollar weak because of our spending? How much (little) will investment help if we continue to spend 40% more annually than we take in?
- Work towards eliminating the National Debt by attacking it from both ends, prohibition on earmarks and not renewing the Bush Tax cuts. Yeah, it's going to suck for some time because people want immediate fixes, but the government keeps putting band-aids on broken bones.
I would be OK with paying more taxes, on a temporary basis, if they were used to cut deficits but the amount we pay in taxes won't have the long term benefit of cutting spending. We have to cut spending. This has not been done since Clinton AND a R congress. Interesting, ain't it. (and no, I don't think Obama has the testicular fortitude to do it).
- Limit non-war related Defense Spending to under 3% of GDP. This would equate to a 25% cut based on Defense being about 4% of GDP this year. Then, as we become more prosperous Defense spending can increase in a relative fashion.
Things won't be prosperous for a long time if ever if we don't reverse course and take a hard look at what we are doing.
As a percentage of GDP we are spending less (non war-related) than we have at any time since the great depression. Some might remember how that turned out (Brewster Buffalo -v- the A6M Zero anyone?). This is is important because some seem to indicate that we are in an oddly familiar time of history, much like the 10s and 20s of the century before.
Perhaps we should look less at cutting at a dollar level and instead look at what are commitments are and cut those back first. Wars aside, we are wearing out a lot of people and equipment by overextending them with commitments all over the world. Some of our commitments in Germany, UK, Japan, Korea allow THOSE countries to spend less in defense spending by GDP as they fall under our protective umbrella.
If we are going to pull back and be less committed across the world than we need to focus on what we are and what our strengths are. We are a maritime nation. Our nation relies on trade (at least until we outsource that too), we need a strong Navy. We need a smaller expidtionary capability, Marines. And we need to be able to reach out and touch someone, Air Force. If we look at our long term prospects of trouble that is likely in Asia and we likely are not going to be invading China (a monumentally stooopid thing to do). A reduction in heavy mechanized forces? So we can probalby cut the Army in half and we'll be OK until its too late and we need a strong Army. Screwed any way you slice at.
We probably won't do what we really need to do and that is the less sexy stuff that supports these forces like replenishment ships and tankers.
Right now we have a big procurement problem. Lockheed Martin is designing / building lots of gold plated under-performing CRAP (as are many other companies) example F-35 and LCS programs. We are not getting good bang for the buck. Our service people are not getting good bang for the buck. Taxpayers are not getting a good bang for the buck.
Where do we cut as for our biggest spending areas? Social Security, Welfare, Medicare? Think it is tough now? The Baby Boomers are retiring en masse, living longer, not paying into the system we're having trouble financing now.
- Require the non-disabled group of people who receive social services to work. Instead of the massive Agricultural Subsidies that the government gives out, provide farmers with "Subsidized Labor". This would reduce the incentive to hire illegals, displace the government's financial burden and hopefully reduce overall costs.
Somehow, though this will *cost* other Americans jobs.
- Most importantly, ignore the Politically Correct bull$@#@ and Red Tape that prevents both parties from taking the most effective, appropriate action due to mitigating fallout cause by upsetting an ignorant, poorly informed public.
How do we come up with smart regulations? There is so much red tape and Nimbyism that people that want to do things that will create jobs can't. Why does 300K in fees, economic, environmental impact statements have to happen on 500K projects? How is there a cheaper way to do it that both sensibly protects and does not hamper stimulation?
|